1064720

research-article2022
JOP0010.1177/02698811211064720Journal of PsychopharmacologyRucker et al.

Original Paper

The effects of psilocybin on cognitive and

emotional functions in healthy participants:
Results from a phase 1, randomised, Journal of Psychopharmacology

placebo-controlled trial involving

1­–12
© The Author(s) 2022

simultaneous psilocybin administration Article reuse guidelines:

and preparation
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811211064720
DOI: 10.1177/02698811211064720
journals.sagepub.com/home/jop

James J Rucker1,2 , Lindsey Marwood3 , Riikka-Liisa J Ajantaival4,

Catherine Bird1, Hans Eriksson3, John Harrison1,5,6, Molly Lennard-Jones3,
Sunil Mistry3, Francesco Saldarini3, Susan Stansfield3, Sara J Tai7,
Sam Williams3, Neil Weston1, Ekaterina Malievskaia3
and Allan H Young1,2

Abstract
Background: Psilocybin, a psychoactive serotonin receptor partial agonist, has been reported to acutely reduce clinical symptoms of depressive
disorders. Psilocybin’s effects on cognitive function have not been widely or systematically studied.
Aim: The aim of this study was to explore the safety of simultaneous administration of psilocybin to healthy participants in the largest randomised
controlled trial of psilocybin to date. Primary and secondary endpoints assessed the short- and longer-term change in cognitive functioning, as
assessed by a Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) Panel, and emotional processing scales. Safety was assessed via
endpoints which included cognitive function, assessed by CANTAB global composite score, and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) monitoring.
Methods: In this phase 1, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy participants (n = 89; mean age 36.1 years; 41 females, 48 males)
were randomised to receive a single oral dose of 10 or 25 mg psilocybin, or placebo, administered simultaneously to up to six participants, with one-
to-one psychological support – each participant having an assigned, dedicated therapist available throughout the session.
Results: In total, 511 TEAEs were reported, with a median duration of 1.0 day; 67% of all TEAEs started and resolved on the day of administration.
There were no serious TEAEs, and none led to study withdrawal. There were no clinically relevant between-group differences in CANTAB global
composite score, CANTAB cognitive domain scores, or emotional processing scale scores.
Conclusions: These results indicate that 10 mg and 25 mg doses of psilocybin were generally well tolerated when given to up to six participants
simultaneously and did not have any detrimental short- or long-term effects on cognitive functioning or emotional processing.
Clinical Trial Registration: EudraCT (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/) number: 2018-000978-30.

Keywords
Psilocybin, cognition, emotional processing, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial

Introduction 1Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry,

Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine) is a nat- 2South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
urally occurring psychoactive alkaloid, first isolated from 3COMPASS Pathways PLC, London, UK

Psilocybe mushrooms (Passie et al., 2002). Alongside other 4Clinical Research Institute, Helsinki University Central Hospital,

tryptamines, including dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and ergolines Helsinki, Finland

such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin is a partial
agonist of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) receptors
(Halberstadt and Geyer, 2011) and belongs to a class of drugs
called ‘psychedelics’ (Carhart-Harris et al., 2016).
Psilocybe mushrooms, and other psychedelic plants such as
peyote and ayahuasca, have been used by Central and South
American native groups in sacred spiritual and healing ceremonies
for thousands of years (Clarke, 2007). In the West, psilocybin has
been used in psychiatric research and in psychodynamic-orientated
5Alzheimer’s Center, AUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
6Metis Cognition Ltd., Kilmington Common, UK
7Division of Psychology & Mental Health, The University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK
Corresponding author:
James J Rucker MD, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of
Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, 16 De
Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK.
Email: james.rucker@kcl.ac.uk
2 Journal of Psychopharmacology 00(0)
psychotherapy from the early to mid-1960s, after it was first iso-
lated and later synthesised by Albert Hofmann in 1957 and 1958,
respectively (Hofmann et al., 1958, 1959). This research on the
effects of psilocybin largely halted when it became a Schedule 1
substance due to international legal controls (Rucker et al., 2020),
before a resurgence in the mid-1990s (Passie, 2005; Passie et al.,
2002).
Psilocybin produces a non-ordinary state of consciousness
characterised by changes in emotional state and perception,
including experiences of self, space and time (Hasler et al., 2004;
Kraehenmann et al., 2015; Vollenweider et al., 1998, 2007).
Previous reports suggest that the psychoactive effects of psilocy-
bin are mainly attributable to partial agonism of the 5HT2A recep-
tor subtype (Halberstadt and Geyer, 2011; Madsen et al., 2019;
Passie et al., 2002; Vollenweider et al., 1998).
Pilot studies have reported on the efficacy of psilocybin in, for
example, treatment-resistant depression (Carhart-Harris et al.,
2016, 2018), major depressive disorder (Davis et al., 2021), ter-
minal-cancer–related anxiety (Griffiths et al., 2016; Grob et al.,
2011; Ross et al., 2016), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
(Moreno et al., 2006) and alcohol and nicotine dependence
(Bogenschutz et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2014). All reported
encouraging efficacy findings, with minimal adverse events
(AEs), although these results should be interpreted with caution
given that some studies were not specifically designed to robustly
test psilocybin’s efficacy (e.g. some had open-label designs or
lacked a placebo control arm) and all were limited by small sam-
ple sizes. Results from a systematic review of studies conducted
prior to psilocybin prohibition in the 1970s were also encourag-
ing (Rucker et al., 2016).
Neural correlates of cognitive and emotional processing are
considered important therapeutic targets in the development of
novel treatments for treatment-resistant depression and other
mental disorders. Recent studies demonstrated that psilocybin
and similar psychedelics modulate neural circuits implicated in
affective disorders, with potential to reduce clinical symptoms of
depression (Carhart-Harris et al., 2012, 2016, 2018).
Social cognitive functioning is an influential factor in the
development, progression and treatment of many mental health
problems. Deficits in social cognition represent key characteris-
tics of many psychiatric and neurological disorders (Cotter et al.,
2018) and may compromise real-world functioning across vari-
ous settings, including work and independent living (Arioli et al.,
2018; Jones et al., 2015). Current interventions for psychiatric
disorders include psychosocial techniques, such as psychothera-
pies and occupational therapy and/or social environment and role
interventions, as well as pharmacological treatments. Although
these interventions are successful for some, they fail others and
are only partially successful in many. Lack of an adequate breadth
of interventions for mental health problems, combined with an
increasingly overt impact, highlights an urgent need for alterna-
tive approaches (NHS Digital, 2014). Given this unmet need for
improved treatment of social and emotional functioning deficits,
a better understanding of the short- and long-term effects of psil-
ocybin on emotional processing and social cognition is required.
The serotonin system has been reported to represent a promis-
ing target for pharmacological modulation of social and emo-
tional functioning and has been implicated in the pathophysiology
of various mental health problems (Ciranna, 2006; Švob Štrac
et al., 2016). Increasing serotonin levels in healthy participants
by administering a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor pro-
moted prosocial behaviour in one study (Crockett et al., 2010)
and reduced processing of negative emotional stimuli in another
(Harmer et al., 2004); however, since serotonin reuptake inhibi-
tors block 5-HT uptake, such studies do not provide information
on specific 5-HT-receptor functioning in social and emotional
functioning. Since psilocybin is a preferential partial agonist of
the 5-HT2A and 5-HT1A receptors, it is well-suited for investiga-
tion of the relative contributions of these subtypes to aspects of
emotional processing. In healthy participants, 5-HT2A/1A-receptor
stimulation following psilocybin administration acutely enhanced
mood and empathy (Mason et al., 2019; Pokorny et al., 2017),
prosocial behaviour (Gabay et al., 2018) and attenuated process-
ing of negative facial expressions and social pain (Bernasconi
et al., 2014; Kometer et al., 2012; Preller et al., 2016). While
these acute effects of psilocybin indicate that serotonin receptor
stimulation is a promising target for improvement of emotional
processing, investigation of the longer-term effects is of clinical
relevance, as it is unclear whether psilocybin’s prosocial effects
persist post-acutely. Furthermore, it has not yet been investigated
whether the beneficial effects of psilocybin may also benefit gen-
eral cognitive abilities. Given the potential for psilocybin as a
treatment for a range of conditions, studying its effects on cogni-
tion is important.
This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of
simultaneous administration of single doses of either 10 or 25 mg
doses of psilocybin compared with placebo in healthy partici-
pants, administered in a supervised setting with one-to-one psy-
chological support, and to assess the short- and long-term effects
of psilocybin on key domains of cognitive functioning. To our
knowledge, this represents the largest randomised controlled trial
of psilocybin to date. It is important to study the safety and feasi-
bility of this model of simultaneous administration as it could be
a more effective, time- and cost-efficient model of treatment
delivery, meaning more patients could potentially benefit from
this treatment, if approved. While the psychological support in
psilocybin therapy delivered before and after psilocybin adminis-
tration has been administered in group settings in another recent
study by Anderson et al. (2020), the actual administration of
psilocybin has only been given on an individual basis in modern
studies, to date. Prior to the implementation of legal constraints
surrounding psychedelics and subsequent assignment of psilocy-
bin and LSD as Schedule 1 substances, several studies did admin-
ister psychedelics and/or psychedelic therapy sessions in a group
setting (e.g. Harman et al., 1966; Leary et al., 1963; Pahnke,
1963). This study is the first study since the revival of psyche-
delic research, to our knowledge, to administer psilocybin to par-
ticipants simultaneously.
Materials and methods
Study design
This was a phase 1, randomised, double-blind, placebo-con-
trolled, between-groups study to evaluate the effects of single
10 and 25 mg doses of psilocybin compared with placebo in
healthy participants, conducted at the Institute of Psychiatry,
Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London,
London, UK, sponsored by COMPASS Pathways (EudraCT
number: 2018-000978-30).
Rucker et al. 3
Participants
The study recruited healthy participants (male or female; aged
18–65 years at screening) with no psilocybin experience within
1 year prior to enrolment; the study aimed to recruit up to 90 par-
ticipants who met eligibility criteria at the screening visit (visit 1;
day -56 to day -2). Participants were recruited via online adver-
tisements and word of mouth. Inclusion criteria, psychiatric
exclusion criteria (including current/history of psychiatric disor-
ders, current/recent psychiatric medications, or other psilocybin-
incompatible psychiatric or psychological conditions, as judged
by the investigator), and medical exclusion criteria are listed in
the Supplementary Methods.
Procedures
Participants were followed up for 12 weeks after study drug
administration; the visit schedule is presented in Supplementary
Figure S1a. Eligibility screening (visit 1) involved medical and
psychiatric history assessment; administration of the Mini
International Neuropsychiatric Interview v7.0.2 (Sheehan et al.,
1998), the MacLean Screening Instrument for Borderline
Personality Disorder (Zanarini et al., 2003) and the Sheehan
Suicidality Tracking Scale (SSTS (Coric et al., 2009); adminis-
tered at screening, baseline and all post-baseline visits except
visit 7); physical examination; assessment of vital signs, body
weight, height and body mass index; 12-lead electrocardiogram;
clinical laboratory tests; urine drug screen; urine pregnancy test;
documentation of contraceptive method; review of prior and
concomitant medications; and recording of AEs. On the day
before study drug administration (baseline; day -1; visit 2), par-
ticipants underwent assessments of cognitive functioning and
emotional processing including social cognition tasks, vital
signs, urine drug screen, review of prior/concomitant medica-
tions and recording of AEs (Supplementary Figure S1b).
Participants were stratified by sex and age (18–35  years
old; >35 years old) and randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio using blocked
randomisation (Supplementary Methods) to 10 mg psilocybin,
25 mg psilocybin, or placebo, to be administered orally. During
this visit, participants attended a 2-h group preparatory session
(involving all participants to be dosed the following day, a lead
therapist and assisting therapists) and had a short (5–15 min)
individual discussion with their assigned assisting therapist.
Details of therapist training and qualifications are provided else-
where (Tai et al., 2021).
On day 1, participants were instructed to eat a light break-
fast ⩾ 2 h before arriving at the clinic; prior to receiving study
drug, participants underwent the SSTS, evaluation of vital signs
and review of concomitant medications and AEs (Supplementary
Figure S1b). The study drug was administered simultaneously to
up to six participants as a single 5-capsule oral dose (psilocybin
10 mg: 2 × 5 mg psilocybin capsules plus 3 × placebo capsules;
psilocybin 25 mg: 5 × 5 mg psilocybin capsules; placebo: 5 ×
placebo capsules). COMP360 psilocybin was administered in
this study, which is COMPASS Pathways’ proprietary pharma-
ceutical-grade synthetic psilocybin formulation that has been
optimised for stability and purity. Participants were randomised
on an individual basis and therefore participants in the same dos-
ing session could be allocated to different treatment groups.
Administration sessions generally lasted ~6–8 h, with psy-
chological support available throughout from specially trained
assisting therapists, who were supervised by a lead therapist. The
first effects of psilocybin are seen about 20–30 min after admin-
istration, are most intense in the first 90–120 min and then gradu-
ally subside, typically resolving in ~5–6 h after administration
(Carhart-Harris et al., 2016). The simultaneous dosing involved
each participant having a private space, for example, a bed sepa-
rated by curtains within the same room, so they could focus on
their own experience with minimal distractions, especially as
participants were encouraged to wear eyeshades, earplugs and/or
earphones for the duration of the administration session.
Participants communicated only with their therapists during the
administration sessions.
After at least 6 h, once the effects of the study drug had mostly
subsided, participants were assessed for safety by the clinical
judgement of therapists and a psychiatrist, AEs were collected,
and participants were asked to complete the Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson and Clark, 1994; Watson
et al., 1988).
Participants were subsequently discharged and asked to return
the following day (day 1; visit 4) for safety assessments and a
discussion with their allocated therapist about the subjective expe-
rience during the administration session (integration session).
Funding and ethical approval
All participants signed an informed consent form prior to eligi-
bility screening. The study was conducted in accordance with the
International Conference on Harmonisation guidelines for Good
Clinical Practice, the regulations on electronic records and elec-
tronic signature, and the most recent guidelines of the Declaration
of Helsinki, and was approved by the London-Brent Research
Ethics Committee (reference number: 18/LO/0731). The study
was funded and sponsored by COMPASS Pathways, London,
UK.
Study endpoints
Safety endpoints included cognitive function, suicidality (as
measured by the SSTS; a higher score indicates greater suicidal-
ity); AEs and serious AEs; vital signs; and clinical laboratory
tests (basic chemistry test). Cognitive function was measured by
the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery
(CANTAB) global composite score change from baseline (day
-1) to day 8 and 29, calculated from Z scores for each CANTAB
measure (Paired Associates Learning-Total Errors Adjusted
(PAL-TEA; a measure of episodic memory); Spatial Working
Memory-Between Errors (SWM-BE; working memory); SWM-
Strategy (SWM-S; executive function and planning); and Rapid
Visual Information Processing A-prime (RVP-A’; sustained
attention); a higher CANTAB global composite score indicates
better cognitive function). Each AE reported by a participant was
assessed for its relationship to the study drug by the blinded study
investigator reporting the event with the following criteria:
related, possibly related, or not related.
The primary efficacy endpoints were short-term change from
baseline (day -1) to day 8 in cognitive measures of attention, spa-
tial and working memory and executive function (Sahakian and
Owen, 1992); short-term change from baseline to day 8 in social
cognition, emotional processing scales (comprising the Pictorial
Empathy Test (PET); Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET);
4 Journal of Psychopharmacology 00(0)
Scale of Social Responsibility (SSR); Social Value Orientation
(SVO); and Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) (Baron-
Cohen et al., 2001; Gough et al., 1952; Lindeman et al., 2018;
Murphy et al., 2011; Spreng et al., 2009)); change from baseline
to day 29 in the individual cognitive functioning assessments
previously outlined; and long-term change from baseline to day
85 in social cognition, emotional processing scales.
Secondary efficacy endpoints included dose-related differ-
ences in the cognitive effects of psilocybin at baseline, day 8
and day 29, measured by the CANTAB assessments RVP-Aʹ,
SWM-BE, SWM-S, PAL-TEA; dose-related differences in the
psychological effects of psilocybin at baseline, day 8 and day
85, measured by the social cognition, emotional processing
scales; differences in the cognitive effects of psilocybin between
psilocybin-naïve and -experienced participants at baseline, day
8 and day 29, measured by the CANTAB global composite
score; and differences in PANAS after study drug administra-
tion on day 1.
Statistical analyses
The Safety Population comprised all randomised participants who
received study drug and was used for all summaries of participant
accountability, demographic and baseline data, and safety infor-
mation, including AE incidence and cognition endpoint analyses.
The modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) Population comprised all
participants in the Safety Population who had at least one post-
dose assessment. This population was used for emotional process-
ing endpoint analyses. The Per-Protocol (PP) Population
comprised all participants in the Safety Population who did not
have a major protocol deviation that was thought to significantly
affect the integrity of the participant’s data. This population was
used for the CANTAB primary endpoint analyses.
A sample size of up to 90 participants (30 per treatment group)
was chosen to allow reasonable assessment of each of the planned
endpoints. This study was exploratory and therefore not ade-
quately powered to detect statistical significance; as such p val-
ues are not reported. The effects of psilocybin on each outcome
variable collected at more than one time point post-baseline were
evaluated as change from baseline scores (observed case) using a
mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with fac-
tors for administration group, former psilocybin experience
(FPE) [emotional processing endpoints only], visit, and treat-
ment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a
covariate. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used
to model the within-patient errors, and the Kenward and Roger
method was used for calculating the denominator degrees of free-
dom for tests of fixed effects. The MMRM method utilises the
observed data efficiently, handling missing data automatically,
based on the assumption that data are missing at random, thus
minimising bias in the estimates of treatment effect. The PANAS,
which was assessed at baseline and day of administration, was
analysed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model
with change from baseline as the dependent variable; the model
included fixed effects for study drug and FPE, and baseline score
as a covariate. To investigate the impact of prior psilocybin use
(yes/no) on the CANTAB endpoints (safety-related), the MMRM
model above was extended to include the main effect for FPE and
its interactions with study drug and time.
Safety analyses were performed on evaluation of CANTAB
global composite score, AEs (coded by Medical Dictionary for
Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Version 21.0 preferred term
and summarised by treatment group, severity and relationship to
study drug determined by the investigator reporting the AE), vital
signs and clinical laboratory assessments. Treatment-emergent
AEs (TEAEs) were defined as any AEs with an onset on or after
the dose of study drug, or any pre-existing condition that wors-
ened on or after the dose of study drug.
At screening, participants underwent CANTAB assessments
as part of a familiarisation session; this was included in the
descriptive statistics but was excluded from statistical modelling.
All analyses were performed using statistical software SAS®
(SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
Results
Participants
The study randomised 89 healthy participants (mean age,
36.1 years; 41 females, 48 males); participant demographics and
disposition are summarised in Table 1 and Supplementary Figure
S2, respectively. Of these, 30 participants were randomised to
receive 25 mg psilocybin, 30–10 mg psilocybin and 29 to pla-
cebo; 33 (37.1%) participants had prior psilocybin experience.
Twenty-five administration sessions were completed, with up to
six participants dosed simultaneously per session (there were 2
sessions with one participant each, 3 with two, 5 with three, 11
with four, 2 with five and 2 with six). All participants randomised
to both psilocybin arms completed the study; four (13.8%) pla-
cebo-treated participants did not complete all study visits (three
were lost to follow-up; one was withdrawn following a protocol
deviation). The first participant’s first visit date was August 17,
2018, and the last participant’s last visit date was July 19, 2019.
Safety outcomes
Adverse events.  In total, 511 TEAEs were reported during the
12-week study: 217 in the 25 mg psilocybin arm (reported by
29 (96.7%) participants), 203 in the 10 mg psilocybin arm
(reported by 29 (96.7%) participants) and 91 in the placebo
arm (reported by 26 (89.7%) participants). Of these, 208, 188
and 77 were deemed by the investigator to be potentially
related to study treatment in the 25 mg, 10 mg and placebo
arms, respectively. The most frequently reported TEAEs
(ordered according to incidence in the 25 mg arm) and a sum-
mary of predefined TEAEs of special interest are presented in
Table 2. There were no serious TEAEs and no AEs led to with-
drawal from the study.
Four participants reported AEs of anxiety on the day of study
drug administration (25 mg psilocybin, n = 2 (6.7%); 10 mg psilo-
cybin, n = 1 (3.3%); placebo, n = 1 (3.4%)) In total, 57 AEs of
‘mood altered’ were reported (mood-related AEs were grouped
into this MedDRA preferred term post hoc, while retaining the
AE description originally reported by the participant/investiga-
tor); of these, two were negative alterations in mood, one in the
10 mg psilocybin arm (‘feeling more moody or sensitive’, which
started on day 3 and lasted for 9 days) and one in the placebo arm
(‘negative mood’, which started and resolved on day 1). The
Rucker et al. 5

Table 1.  Participant demographics (safety population).

Parameter Psilocybin 25 mg Psilocybin 10 mg Placebo Overall

(N = 30) (N = 30) (N = 29) (N = 89)

Gender, n (%)
 Male 16 (53.3) 16 (53.3) 16 (55.2) 48 (53.9)
 Female 14 (46.7) 14 (46.7) 13 (44.8) 41 (46.1)
Race, n (%)
 White 25 (83.3) 27 (90.0) 20 (69.0) 72 (80.9)
 Black  0  0 1 (3.4) 1 (1.1)
 Asian 2 (6.7) 1 (3.3) 3 (10.3) 6 (6.7)
 Mixed 2 (6.7) 1 (3.3) 1 (3.4) 4 (4.5)
 Other 1 (3.3) 1 (3.3) 4 (13.8) 6 (6.7)
Age at time of consent, years
  Mean (SD) 36.6 (10.29) 36.1 (9.25) 35.6 (7.69) 36.1 (9.06)
BMI, kg/m2
  Mean (SD) 22.9 (3.75) 23.0 (2.90) 23.7 (3.20) 23.2 (3.29)
Educational level, n (%)
  No formal qualifications  0  0  0  0
  GCSE/GCE/O level  0  0  0  0
  A level/NVQ 2 (6.7) 1 (3.3)  0 3 (3.4)
  Undergraduate/higher national diploma 9 (30.0) 11 (36.7) 10 (34.5) 30 (33.7)
  Master’s or postgraduate diploma 16 (53.3) 16 (53.3) 15 (51.7) 47 (52.8)
 PhD 3 (10.0) 2 (6.7) 4 (13.8) 9 (10.1)
Prior psilocybin experience, n (%)
 Yes 11 (36.7) 15 (50.0) 7 (24.1) 33 (37.1)
 No 19 (63.3) 15 (50.0) 22 (75.9) 56 (62.9)

BMI: body mass index; GC(S)E: general certificate of (secondary) education; NVQ: national vocational qualification.

Table 2.  Most frequently reported TEAEs (occurring in >15% of participants in any treatment arm and ordered according to incidence in the 25 mg
psilocybin arm) and summary of TEAEs of special interest (Safety Population).

Psilocybin 25 mg Psilocybin 10 mg Placebo

(N = 30) (N = 30) (N = 29)

  n (%) Events n (%) Events n (%) Events

Most frequently reported TEAE (MedDRA Preferred Term)

  Hallucination, visual 21 (70.0) 22 18 (60.0) 20 2 (6.9) 2
 Illusion 18 (60.0) 26 19 (63.3) 25 4 (13.8) 5
  Mood altered 15 (50.0) 25 13 (43.3) 23 6 (20.7) 9
 Headache 15 (50.0) 16 9 (30.0) 12 5 (17.2) 5
 Fatigue   8 (26.7) 8 9 (30.0) 10 3 (10.3) 3
  Euphoric mood   7 (23.3) 8 7 (23.3) 7 0 0
  Tension headache   6 (20.0) 6 3 (10.0) 3 3 (10.3) 3
  Time perception altered   6 (20.0) 6 2 (6.7) 2 3 (10.3) 3
  Emotional disorder   5 (16.7) 6 2 (6.7) 2 0 0
  Somatic hallucination   5 (16.7) 6 8 (26.7) 8 4 (13.8) 5
  Affect lability   3 (10.0) 3 5 (16.7) 5 1 (3.4) 1
TEAEs of special interest (MedDRA System Organ Class/Preferred Term)
  Any TEAE of special interest 26 (86.7) 80 25 (83.3) 81 10 (34.5) 19
  Nervous system disorders  0 0 2 (6.7) 2 0 0
  Memory impairment  0 0 1 (3.3) 1 0 0
   Psychomotor skills impaired  0 0 1 (3.3) 1 0 0
  Psychiatric disorders 26 (86.7) 80 25 (83.3) 79 10 (34.5) 19
  Affect lability   3 (10.0) 3 5 (16.7) 5 1 (3.4) 1
   Change in sustained attention  0 0 2 (6.7) 2 0 0

(Continued)
6 Journal of Psychopharmacology 00(0)

Table 2. (Continued)

Psilocybin 25 mg Psilocybin 10 mg Placebo

(N = 30) (N = 30) (N = 29)

  n (%) Events n (%) Events n (%) Events

  Depressed mood   2 (6.7) 2 1 (3.3) 1 1 (3.4) 1

   Dissociative identity disorder   2 (6.7) 2 1 (3.3) 2 0 0
  Euphoric mood   7 (23.3) 8 7 (23.3) 7 0 0
  Hallucinationa   2 (6.7) 2 3 (10.0) 3 0 0
  Hallucination, auditory   4 (13.3) 4 4 (13.3) 4 1 (3.4) 1
  Hallucination, gustatory  0 0 1 (3.3) 1 0 0
  Hallucination, olfactory   1 (3.3) 1 1 (3.3) 1 0 0
  Hallucination, tactile   4 (13.3) 4 2 (6.7) 2 0 0
  Hallucination, visual 21 (70.0) 22 18 (60.0) 20 2 (6.9) 2
  Mood altered 15 (50.0) 25 13 (43.3) 23 6 (20.7) 9
  Somatic hallucination   5 (16.7) 6 8 (26.7) 8 4 (13.8) 5
   Substance-induced psychotic disorder   1 (3.3)b 1  0 0 0 0

TEAEs were coded post hoc to MedDRA Version 21.0 Preferred Terms. TEAE: treatment-emergent adverse event; MedDRA: Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities.
aAll TEAEs coded to the MedDRA preferred term ‘Hallucination’ were described as ‘kinaesthetic hallucinations’.

remaining ‘mood altered’ AEs, which included introspection,
reflection and sense of oneness, are summarised in Supplementary
Table S1.
Psilocybin induced expected, transient psychedelic experi-
ences. These included 86 reports of hallucination, 57 of mood
altered, 56 of illusion, 15 of euphoric mood and 11 of time per-
ception altered. Across all AEs reported in all treatment arms
throughout the 12 week study, 67% started and resolved on the
administration day; the median duration of AEs was 1.0 day.
When selecting only those AEs likely to be psychedelic in nature
(according to the AE MedDRA preferred term), determined by
post hoc adjudication by four investigators (54% of all AEs), 255
started on the administration day, 235 (92%) of which were
resolved that day.
An AE of substance induced psychotic disorder was reported
for a participant who became behaviourally disinhibited during the
acute drug experience. After a medical assessment, 2.5 mg oromu-
cosal midazolam was administered. The participant recovered with
no sequelae and was discharged 11 h after receiving the study
intervention. This event was not considered to be an SAE, and no
clinically significant ongoing effects were noted at follow-up.
Clinical Laboratory Assessment and Vital signs.  There were
four clinically significant clinical laboratory assessment findings,
which were recorded as AEs (none of which prevented the par-
ticipant from entering or continuing in the study). Two occurred
in the blood test at screening, two in the blood test on the day
after administration. There were no clinically significant findings
in vital signs.
Suicidality.  At baseline, all participants recorded an SSTS score
of 0. During follow-up, no participants in the 25 mg psilocybin
arm recorded an SSTS score > 0; however, one participant in the
10 mg psilocybin arm recorded a highest score of 1 during fol-
low-up (reported at the day 29 visit). This participant reported a
TEAE of suicidal thoughts (one event), which started and
resolved on day 19, was mild in severity and was deemed by the
investigator to be possibly related to study drug. In addition, one
participant in the placebo arm reported two TEAEs of suicidal
ideation (one started on day 4 and lasted for 5 days; one started on
day 18 and lasted for 17 days) and two TEAEs of suicidal
thoughts (one started and resolved on day 79; one started and
resolved on day 91). All four events were moderate in severity
and considered possibly related to study drug.
Cognitive and emotional processing
outcomes
Cognitive functioning.  Mixed-model analysis of change from
baseline in CANTAB outcomes measures by dose (Safety Popu-
lation) are presented in Table 3 and Figure 1(a) to (e).
For RVP-A', a measure of sustained attention, there were
trends indicating better performance on average for 10 mg and
25 mg psilocybin by day 29 compared with baseline, but no dif-
ference was observed for 10 mg and 25 mg psilocybin when com-
pared with placebo, nor between 25 mg and 10 mg psilocybin.
For SWM-BE, a measure of working memory, and SWM-S, a
measure of executive function and planning, there were trends
indicating better performance on average for 25 mg psilocybin
(and placebo for SWM-BE only) by day 29 compared with base-
line, but no difference was observed for 10 mg and 25 mg psilo-
cybin when compared with placebo, nor between 25 mg and
10 mg psilocybin. For PAL-TEA, a measure of episodic memory,
there was no difference for any of the groups at day 29 compared
with baseline, nor were any differences observed between the
groups.
For the global composite (safety outcome), higher scores indi-
cate better performance. Overall, there was an increasing trend in
score for the 10 mg and 25 mg psilocybin doses by day 29 com-
pared with baseline. But no difference was observed for 10 mg
and 25 mg psilocybin when compared with placebo, and also
between 25 mg and 10 mg psilocybin by day 29. On the CANTAB
composite score, performance was worse than placebo for the
10 mg psilocybin group at day 8. However, this result is due in
Rucker et al. 7

Table 3.  Mixed-model analysis of change from baseline in CANTAB outcome measures (safety population).

LS mean (SE) change from baseline in score LS mean (95% CI) difference from placebo

  Day 8 Day 29 Day 8 Day 29

CANTAB global composite

 Placebo
  Psilocybin 10 mg
  Psilocybin 25 mg
PAL-TEA
 Placebo
  Psilocybin 10 mg
  Psilocybin 25 mg
SWM-BE
 Placebo
  Psilocybin 10 mg
  Psilocybin 25 mg
SWM-S
 Placebo
  Psilocybin 10 mg
  Psilocybin 25 mg
RVP-A'
 Placebo
  Psilocybin 10 mg
  Psilocybin 25 mg
0.2197 (0.07017) 0.1617 (0.09272) — —
0.0237 (0.06899) 0.1981 (0.08376) –0.1960 (–0.39172, –0.00024) 0.0364 (–0.21234, 0.28505)
0.1030 (0.06898) 0.3136 (0.08501) –0.1167 (–0.31228, 0.07898) 0.1519 (–0.09846, 0.40219)
–0.9 (1.11) 0.9 (1.50) — —
1.6 (1.09) –1.6 (1.35) 2.5 (–0.57, 5.65) –2.4 (–6.48, 1.59)
–1.4 (1.09) –1.7 (1.37) –0.5 (–3.60, 2.60) –2.5 (–6.59, 1.52)
–1.4 (0.99) –2.4 (0.85) — —
0.1 (0.98) –0.7 (0.77) 1.5 (–1.27, 4.27) 1.7 (–0.56, 4.02)
0.3 (0.97) –2.0 (0.78) 1.7 (–1.02, 4.51) 0.5 (–1.83, 2.77)
–0.5 (0.31) –0.5 (0.36) — —
–0.1 (0.30) –0.4 (0.33) 0.4 (–0.46, 1.26) 0.2 (–0.78, 1.16)
–0.2 (0.30) –0.9 (0.33) 0.3 (–0.59, 1.12) –0.4 (–1.35, 0.60)
0.0139 (0.00293) 0.0049 (0.00558) — —
0.0122 (0.00288) 0.0152 (0.00502) –0.0017 (–0.00984, 0.00651) 0.0103 (–0.00464, 0.02524)
0.0086 (0.00288) 0.0148 (0.00510) –0.0053 (–0.01348, 0.00286) 0.0099 (–0.00519, 0.02490)

Baseline is defined as the last measurement obtained prior to study drug administration.
The treatment effect (i.e. the difference between LS means for each treatment pair) is obtained from a mixed-model for repeated measures analysis with change from
baseline score as the dependent variable. The model includes fixed effects for treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, with visit as the repeating factor, par-
ticipant as a random effect and baseline score as a covariate. For PAL-TEA, SWM-BE and SWM-S, lower scores denote better performance. For RVP-A' and CANTAB compos-
ite, higher scores denote better performance. CANTAB: Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery; LS: least squares; CI confidence interval; PAL-TEA: Paired
Associates Learning-Total Errors Adjusted; SWM-BE: Spatial Working Memory-Between Errors; SWM-S: Spatial Working Memory-Strategy; RVP-A': Rapid Visual Information
Processing A-prime.

part to the larger improvement in performance from baseline by
the placebo group at day 8. For the 10 mg psilocybin group, per-
formance increased again by day 29 to a level similar to placebo
suggesting no adverse effects of the 10 mg psilocybin dose com-
pared with placebo.
When comparing findings on the aforementioned CANTAB
assessments (RVP-A', SWM-BE, SWM-S, PAL-TEA) between
psilocybin-naïve and psilocybin-experienced participants and in
the Per-Protocol population (which excluded one participant as
their baseline CANTAB assessment was not completed until after
the administration session), the results suggested there was no
difference of interest and the results were similar to what was
observed in the overall analysis in the Safety Population. It
should be noted that there were small numbers of participants in
each subgroup, as well as an imbalance in the number of partici-
pants who were psilocybin-naïve and experienced in the 25 mg
psilocybin arm and placebo.
Social cognition and emotional processing. There was no
difference between either psilocybin group and placebo in any
social cognition and emotional processing scale (PET, RMET,
SSR, SVO, or TEQ) scores at day 8 or day 85, relative to baseline
(Table 4).
PANAS.  The placebo group showed a trend for a reduction in
positive affect score from baseline to post-dose (least squares
(LS) mean change = -5.0), which was not observed in either psi-
locybin group (Supplementary Table S3). Conversely, the 25 mg
psilocybin group showed a trend for an increase in LS mean
negative affect score from baseline of 1.3, compared with no
change in the 10 mg psilocybin and placebo groups.
Discussion
This was a phase 1, double-blind, randomised, placebo-con-
trolled study to evaluate the effects of a single dose (10 mg or
25 mg) of psilocybin, with one-to-one support from specially
trained therapists, on cognitive functioning and emotional pro-
cessing in healthy participants. The study demonstrated the safety
and feasibility of this model of psilocybin administration, as
demonstrated by willingness of participants to undergo simulta-
neous administration and group preparation sessions.
Psilocybin was generally well tolerated, with no serious
TEAEs reported, consistent with findings of previous, smaller
studies evaluating the feasibility of psilocybin administration
with psychological support in patients with psychiatric disorders
(Bogenschutz et al., 2015; Carhart-Harris et al., 2016, 2018;
Davis et al., 2021; Griffiths et al., 2016; Grob et al., 2011;
Johnson et al., 2014; Moreno et al., 2006; Ross et al., 2016). No
TEAEs led to study withdrawal, indicating that psilocybin
administered at these doses in a supervised setting was well toler-
ated among healthy participants. Over two thirds of adverse
8 Journal of Psychopharmacology 00(0)
events both started and resolved on the day of dosing. Both doses
of psilocybin elicited expected, transient psychedelic effects,
which in previous studies have correlated with antidepressive/
anxiolytic efficacy (Carhart-Harris and Goodwin, 2017; Davis
et al., 2021; Griffiths et al., 2016; Grob et al., 2011).
Small differences in cognitive outcomes were seen between
the groups, but no clinically relevant negative findings were
identified. For RVP-A', SWM-BE, SWM-S and CANTAB global
composite, there were trends demonstrating better performance
on average in the psilocybin groups by day 29 compared with
baseline. The fact that participants were typically highly edu-
cated, and the small sample size, could have limited the general-
isability of results. These findings warrant further investigation
in clinical populations.
In terms of social cognition and emotional processing out-
comes, there were no consistent trends to suggest that either
psilocybin dose had a short- or long-term effect on any social
cognition scale (PET, RMET, SSR, SVO, or TEQ). These find-
ings suggest that psilocybin does not exert any detrimental effect
on the social cognition and emotional functions assessed. Future
Figure 1. (Continued)
Rucker et al. 9

Figure 1.  Mixed-model analysis of change from baseline in CANTAB outcome measures (Safety Population) in: a) CANTAB global composite score,
b) PAL-TEA score, c) SWM-BE score, d) SWM-S score, e) RVP-A’ score.
CANTAB: Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery; LS: least squares; PAL-TEA: Paired Associates Learning-Total Errors Adjusted; RVP-A': Rapid Visual Infor-
mation Processing A-prime; SWM-BE: Spatial Working Memory-Between Errors; SWM-S: Spatial Working Memory-Strategy.

Table 4.  Mixed-model analysis of change from baseline in social cognition scales (Modified Intent-to-Treat Population).

LS mean (SE) change from baseline in score LS mean (95% CI) difference from placebo

  Day 8 Day 85 Day 8 Day 85

PET
 Placebo –0.1 (0.10) –0.2 (0.10) – –
  Psilocybin 10 mg –0.3 (0.09) –0.3 (0.09) –0.1 (–0.39, 0.15) –0.1 (–0.39, 0.15)
  Psilocybin 25 mg 0.0 (0.09) –0.1 (0.09) 0.2 (–0.11, 0.42) 0.1 (–0.12, 0.41)
RMET
 Placebo 0.3 (0.59) –0.1 (0.66) – –
  Psilocybin 10 mg 0.4 (0.53) 0.1 (0.57) 0.1 (–1.43, 1.69) 0.2 (–1.53, 1.95)
  Psilocybin 25 mg 0.4 (0.55) 0.4 (0.61) 0.2 (–1.44, 1.74) 0.5 (–1.29, 2.28)
SSR Global
 Placebo –3.2 (1.23) –2.1 (1.20) – –
  Psilocybin 10 mg –2.0 (1.12) –1.8 (1.00) 1.2 (–2.16, 4.56) 0.3 (–2.83, 3.49)
  Psilocybin 25 mg –0.3 (1.17) 0.1 (1.04) 2.8 (–0.50, 6.18) 2.2 (–0.94, 5.29)
SSR Fulfilling Expectations
 Placebo –0.2 (0.07) –0.1 (0.07) – –
  Psilocybin 10 mg –0.1 (0.07) –0.2 (0.06) 0.1 (–0.14, 0.26) –0.1 (–0.32, 0.08)
  Psilocybin 25 mg 0.0 (0.07) 0.0 (0.07) 0.2 (–0.04, 0.35) 0.0 (–0.16, 0.23)
SSR Compliance
Social Rules
 Placebo –0.1 (0.08) –0.1 (0.08) – –
  Psilocybin 10 mg –0.1 (0.07) –0.1 (0.07) 0.0 (–0.19, 0.22) 0.0 (–0.22, 0.22)
  Psilocybin 25 mg 0.0 (0.07) 0.0 (0.07) 0.1 (–0.07, 0.34) 0.1 (–0.08, 0.35)
SVO Angle
 Placebo –1.6 (1.29) –3.3 (1.37) – –
  Psilocybin 10 mg 1.8 (1.16) 0.1 (1.16) 3.4 (–0.05, 6.85) 3.4 (–0.16, 6.97)
  Psilocybin 25 mg 0.5 (1.20) –0.9 (1.24) 2.1 (–1.32, 5.58) 2.4 (–1.16, 6.06)
SVO Type
 Placebo 0.0 (0.07) 0.0 (0.06) – –
  Psilocybin 10 mg 0.1 (0.06) 0.1 (0.05) 0.1 (–0.07, 0.28) 0.1 (–0.06, 0.28)
  Psilocybin 25 mg 0.1 (0.06) 0.0 (0.06) 0.1 (–0.11, 0.24) 0.1 (–0.10, 0.24)
TEQ
 Placebo –0.1 (0.09) –0.2 (0.09) – –
  Psilocybin 10 mg –0.1 (0.08) –0.1 (0.08) 0.1 (–0.16, 0.31) 0.1 (–0.15, 0.34)
  Psilocybin 25 mg 0.0 (0.08) 0.0 (0.08) 0.2 (–0.08, 0.38) 0.1 (–0.13, 0.36)

Baseline is defined as the last measurement obtained prior to study drug administration.
The treatment effect (i.e. the difference between LS means for each treatment pair) is obtained from a mixed-model for repeated measures analysis with change from
baseline score as the dependent variable. The model includes fixed effects for treatment, Former Psilocybin Experience, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, with visit
as the repeating factor, participant as a random effect and baseline score as a covariate. LS: least squares; CI: confidence interval; PET: Pictorial Empathy Test; RMET:
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test; SSR: Scale of Social Responsibility; SVO: Social Value Orientation; TEQ: Toronto Empathy Questionnaire.
10 Journal of Psychopharmacology 00(0)
research should evaluate the generalisability of these social cog-
nition findings in clinical populations. Evaluation of PANAS
scores measured immediately following study drug administra-
tion showed a reduction in positive affect for placebo-treated par-
ticipants, which was not replicated in either psilocybin dose
group, whereas the 25 mg arm showed an increase in negative
affect, which was not replicated in the 10 mg or placebo groups.
Taken together, these findings support the exploration of psilo-
cybin for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, including treat-
ment-resistant depression, in a supervised setting with psychological
support. Further studies are required to investigate the efficacy and
safety of psilocybin in patient populations in this setting.
Strengths and limitations
This was the first study, to our knowledge, to systematically
study the longer-term effects of psilocybin on cognition, and to
report a full AE profile in healthy volunteers. This study benefit-
ted from a larger sample size than previous studies of the subjec-
tive experience, efficacy and safety of psilocybin (Carhart-Harris
et al., 2016, 2018; Griffiths et al., 2008, 2011, 2016); however,
our sample size was not powered to detect statistically significant
differences in psilocybin efficacy between groups. Instead, this
was an exploratory evaluation of the efficacy and safety of psilo-
cybin compared with placebo; caution should therefore be taken
when interpreting these results.
Although both 10 mg and 25 mg of psilocybin were gener-
ally well tolerated by participants in this study, it is important
to consider the possible risks. Previous literature, albeit in very
rare cases (Dos Santos et al., 2017; Litjens et al., 2014; Nichols,
2016), has reported a few incidences of serotonin syndrome
(Schifano et al., 2021), Hallucinogen Persisting Perception
Disorder (HPPD) (Litjens et al., 2014) and substance-related
exogenous psychosis (Hendin and Penn, 2021) with psyche-
delic substances, typically when used recreationally alongside
other psychotropic medications. More research including
larger, diverse samples are necessary to gain a clearer picture
of the acute and longer-term adverse events associated with
psilocybin.
The current study measured the short-term effects of psilocy-
bin at day 8, and longer-term effects at day 29 or 85. Future
research would benefit from collecting outcomes at later time
points post-dosing to gain a broader understanding of more long-
term effects, and also acutely, either immediately after or during
psilocybin administration.
General population level lifetime use of psilocybin in the UK
population is estimated to be approximately 3%, with a slightly
higher use of 6% of the population reported in the United States
(Hill and Thomas, 2020; Krebs and Johansen, 2013). With thirty-
five participants reporting previous use of psilocybin in this
study, the proportion of participants with prior experience is
greater than expected in the general population, thus additional
caution should be taken when generalising these results to other
populations. In many previous psilocybin trials, previous psyche-
delic use among participants, when reported, is much greater than
in the general population (e.g. Carhart-Harris et al., 2021;
Griffiths et al., 2016; Moreno et al., 2006). Explanations for these
disproportionate numbers include self-referral to trials and some
studies requiring past experiences. To extrapolate these ongoing
findings to the general population, more diverse groups of par-
ticipants should be recruited.
The efficacy of the blinding was not assessed in this study and
therefore we cannot rule out the potential that guessing the treat-
ment assignment influenced results. Participants underwent indi-
vidual, not group, integration sessions after dosing in order to try
to reduce unblinding. It is of note that four participants in the
placebo arm did not complete the study. Given psilocybin’s psy-
chedelic effects, combined with the fact that 37% of the total
sample had previous experience using psilocybin, it is possible
that these participants may have been able to determine their
assigned treatment group.
It is possible that practice effects could have influenced
results. However, a familiarisation session, where participants
completed the cognitive assessments at the screening visit, was
conducted. The purpose of familiarisation was to ensure that all
the participants had a chance to practice the tests prior to the col-
lection of the baseline data. This ensured that all participants
understood the tests and minimised the small but consistent
improvements in performance due to practice effects.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated the feasibility of one-to-one psychologi-
cal support from specially trained therapists during simultaneous
administration of psilocybin in a supervised clinical setting in
healthy volunteers. A single dose of psilocybin 10 mg or 25 mg
elicited no serious AEs and did not appear to produce any clini-
cally relevant detrimental short- or long-term effects, compared
with placebo, in cognitive or social functioning or emotional
regulation in this study in healthy volunteers. Further investiga-
tion of simultaneous therapeutic psilocybin administration in
clinical populations is warranted.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Katrin Preller for technical advice and support, and
also acknowledge the support of the following individuals in the comple-
tion of this research: Frederick Reinholdt, Peter Gasser, Nefize Yalin,
Dimosthenis Tsapekos, Kristina Posadas, Aster Daniel, Glynis Ivin,
Sophie Ward, Michael Welds, Martin Heasman, Elizabeth Hodges and
Rafaela Giemza. The authors acknowledge support of the National
Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College
London, and the NIHR/Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility at
King’s College Hospital, where this study was undertaken. The views
expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. Medical writ-
ing support, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Ottilie
Gildea of CMC AFFINITY, McCann Health Medical Communications
Ltd., in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines.
This assistance was funded by COMPASS Pathways plc, London, UK.
Author contributions
All authors made substantial contributions to the conception or design of
the study, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; all authors
contributed to drafting the article or revising it critically for important
intellectual content; and all provided final approval of the version to be
published. The authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work
in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part
of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Rucker et al. 11
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: JJR
is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship (CS-2017-17-007) from
the National Institute for Health Research (UK) and has received grant
and congress funding from COMPASS Pathways. AHY’s research is
funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical
Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
and King’s College London. AHY has also received grant funding from
COMPASS Pathways plc and honoraria for attending advisory boards
and presenting lectures for Allergan, AstraZeneca, Bionomics, Eli Lilly,
Janssen, LivaNova, Lundbeck, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma
and Sunovion; and has received consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson
and LivaNova. AHY is on the Editorial Advisory Board at the Journal
of Psychopharmacology. R-LJA has received research funding and
consulting fees from COMPASS Pathways plc. CB has received
research funding from COMPASS Pathways plc. JH reports personal
fees from AlzeCure, Aptinyx, AstraZeneca, Athira Therapeutics, Axon
Neuroscience, Axovant, Biogen Idec, BlackThornRx, Boehringer
Ingelheim, Brands2life, Cerecin, Cognition Therapeutics, COMPASS
Pathways plc, Corlieve, Curasen, EIP Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, FSV7,
G4X Discovery, GfHEU, Heptares, Kaasa Health, Ki Elements,
Lundbeck, Lysosome Therapeutics, MyCognition, Neurocentria,
Neurocog, Neurodyn Inc., Neurotrack, Novartis, Nutricia, Probiodrug,
Regeneron, ReMynd, Rodin Therapeutics, Samumed, Sanofi, Servier,
Signant, Syndesi Therapeutics, Takeda, Vivoryon Therapeutics, vTv
Therapeutics and Winterlight Labs. ML-J, LM, SM, FS, SS, SW, HE and
EM are employees or former employees of COMPASS Pathways plc. SJT
has received consulting fees from COMPASS Pathways plc and is an
advisor for Clerkenwell Health and Albert Labs. NW has no disclosures
to make in relation to this work.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was
sponsored and funded by COMPASS Pathways plc, London, UK.
ORCID iDs
James J Rucker https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4647-8088
Lindsey Marwood https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5818-2199
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Anderson BT, Danforth A, Daroff R, et al. (2020) Psilocybin-assisted
group therapy for demoralized older long-term AIDS survivor men:
An open-label safety and feasibility pilot study. EClinicalMedicine
27: 100538.
Arioli M, Crespi C and Canessa N (2018) Social cognition through the
lens of cognitive and clinical neuroscience. BioMed Research Inter-
national 2018: 4283427.
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, et al. (2001) The ‘Reading the
Mind in the Eyes’ Test revised version: A study with normal adults,
and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 42(2): 241–251.
Bernasconi F, Schmidt A, Pokorny T, et al. (2014) Spatiotemporal brain
dynamics of emotional face processing modulations induced by
the serotonin 1A/2A receptor agonist psilocybin. Cerebral Cortex
24(12): 3221–3231.
Bogenschutz MP, Forcehimes AA, Pommy JA, et al. (2015) Psilocybin-
assisted treatment for alcohol dependence: A proof-of-concept study.
Journal of Psychopharmacology 29(3): 289–299.
Carhart-Harris RL and Goodwin GM (2017) The therapeutic potential of
psychedelic drugs: Past, present, and future. Neuropsychopharma-
cology 42(11): 2105–2113.
Carhart-Harris RL, Bolstridge M, Day CMJ, et al. (2018) Psilocybin with
psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: Six-month
follow-up. Psychopharmacology 235(2): 399–408.
Carhart-Harris RL, Bolstridge M, Rucker J, et al. (2016) Psilocybin with
psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: An open-
label feasibility study. Lancet Psychiatry 3(7): 619–627.
Carhart-Harris RL, Erritzoe D, Williams T, et al. (2012) Neural correlates
of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocy-
bin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 109(6): 2138–2143.
Ciranna L (2006) Serotonin as a modulator of glutamate- and GABA-
mediated neurotransmission: Implications in physiological functions
and in pathology. Current Neuropharmacology 4(2): 101–114.
Clarke Z (2007) Psilocybin. In: Enna SJ and Bylund DB (eds) xPharm:
The Comprehensive Pharmacology Reference. New York: Elsevier,
pp.1–4.
Coric V, Stock EG, Pultz J, et al. (2009) Sheehan Suicidality Tracking
Scale (Sheehan-STS): Preliminary results from a multicenter clinical
trial in generalized anxiety disorder. Psychiatry 6(1): 26–31.
Cotter J, Granger K, Backx R, et al. (2018) Social cognitive dysfunction
as a clinical marker: A systematic review of meta-analyses across
30 clinical conditions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 84:
92–99.
Crockett MJ, Clark L, Hauser MD, et al. (2010) Serotonin selectively
influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm
aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 107(40): 17433–17438.
Davis AK, Barrett FS, May DG, et al. (2021) Effects of psilocybin-
assisted therapy on major depressive disorder: A randomized clinical
trial. JAMA Psychiatry 78: 481–489.
Dos Santos RG, Bouso JC and Hallak JEC (2017) Ayahuasca, dimeth-
yltryptamine, and psychosis: A systematic review of human studies.
Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology 7(4): 141–157.
Gabay A, Carhart-Harris RL, Mazibuko N, et al. (2018) Psilocybin and
MDMA reduce costly punishment in the Ultimatum Game. Scientific
Reports 8(1): 8236.
Gough HG, McClosky H and Meehl PE (1952) A personality scale for
social responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
47(1): 73–80.
Griffiths R, Richards W, Johnson M, et al. (2008) Mystical-type experi-
ences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal
meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later. Journal of Psy-
chopharmacology 22(6): 621–632.
Griffiths RR, Johnson MW, Carducci MA, et al. (2016) Psilocybin
produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and
anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer: A randomized
double-blind trial. Journal of Psychopharmacology 30(12): 1181–
1197.
Griffiths RR, Johnson MW, Richards WA, et al. (2011) Psilocybin occa-
sioned mystical-type experiences: Immediate and persisting dose-
related effects. Psychopharmacology 218(4): 649–665.
Grob CS, Danforth AL, Chopra GS, et al. (2011) Pilot study of psilo-
cybin treatment for anxiety in patients with advanced-stage cancer.
Archives of General Psychiatry 68(1): 71–78.
Halberstadt AL and Geyer MA (2011) Multiple receptors contribute to
the behavioral effects of indoleamine hallucinogens. Neuropharma-
cology 61(3): 364–381.
Harman WW, McKim RH, Mogar RE, et al. (1966) Psychedelic agents
in creative problem-solving: A pilot study. Psychological Reports
19(1): 211–227.
Harmer CJ, Shelley NC, Cowen PJ, et al. (2004) Increased positive ver-
sus negative affective perception and memory in healthy volunteers
following selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibi-
tion. American Journal of Psychiatry 161(7): 1256–1263.
12 Journal of Psychopharmacology 00(0)
Hasler F, Grimberg U, Benz MA, et al. (2004) Acute psychological and
physiological effects of psilocybin in healthy humans: A double-
blind, placebo-controlled dose-effect study. Psychopharmacology
172(2): 145–156.
Hendin HM, Penn AD (2021) An episode of mania following self-
reported ingestion of psilocybin mushrooms in a woman previously
not diagnosed with bipolar disorder: A case report. Bipolar Disor-
ders 23: 733–735.
Hill SL and Thomas SH (2020) Drug misuse. Medicine 48(3): 176–181.
Hofmann A, Heim R, Brack A, et al. (1958) Psilocybin, a psychotropic
substance from the Mexican mushroom Psilicybe Mexicana Heim.
Experientia 14(3): 107–109.
Hofmann A, Heim R, Brack A, et al. (1959) Psilocybin und Psilocin,
zwei psychotrope Wirkstoffe aus mexikanischen Rauschpilzen. Hel-
vetica Chimica Acta 42(5): 1557–1572.
Johnson MW, Garcia-Romeu A, Cosimano MP, et al. (2014) Pilot study
of the 5-HT2AR agonist psilocybin in the treatment of tobacco
addiction. Journal of Psychopharmacology 28(11): 983–992.
Jones DE, Greenberg M and Crowley M (2015) Early social-emotional
functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergar-
ten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of
Public Health 105(11): 2283–2290.
Kometer M, Schmidt A, Bachmann R, et al. (2012) Psilocybin biases
facial recognition, goal-directed behavior, and mood state toward
positive relative to negative emotions through different serotonergic
subreceptors. Biological Psychiatry 72(11): 898–906.
Kraehenmann R, Preller KH, Scheidegger M, et al. (2015) Psilocybin-
induced decrease in amygdala reactivity correlates with enhanced
positive mood in healthy volunteers. Biological Psychiatry 78(8):
572–581.
Krebs TS and Johansen P (2013) Over 30 million psychedelic users in the
United States. F1000Research 2: 98.
Leary T, Litwin GH and Metzner R (1963) Reactions to psilocybin
administered in a supportive environment. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease 137(6): 561–573.
Lindeman M, Koirikivi I and Lipsanen J (2018) Pictorial Empathy Test
(PET): An easy-to-use method for assessing affective empathic
reactions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 34(6):
421–431.
Litjens RPW, Brunt T, Alderliefste GJ, et al. (2014) Hallucinogen persist-
ing perception disorder and the serotonergic system: A comprehen-
sive review including new MDMA-related clinical cases. European
Neuropsychopharmacology 24(8): 1309–1323.
Madsen MK, Fisher PM, Burmester D, et al. (2019) Psychedelic effects
of psilocybin correlate with serotonin 2A receptor occupancy and
plasma psilocin levels. Neuropsychopharmacology 44(7): 1328–
1334.
Mason NL, Mischler E, Uthaug MV, et al. (2019) Sub-acute effects of
psilocybin on empathy, creative thinking, and subjective well-being.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 51: 123–134.
Moreno FA, Wiegand CB, Taitano EK, et al. (2006) Safety, tolerability,
and efficacy of psilocybin in 9 patients with obsessive-compulsive
disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 67(11): 1735–1740.
Murphy RO, Ackermann KA and Handgraaf MJJ (2011) Measuring
social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making 6(8):
771–781.
McManus S, Bebbington P, Jenkins R, Brugha T (eds.) (2016) Mental
health and wellbeing in England: Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey
2014. Leeds: NHS Digital. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/ukgwa/20180328140249mp_/http://digital.nhs.uk/media/35660/
APMS-2014-Full-Report/pdf/Mental_health_and_wellbeing_in_
England_full_report
Nichols DE (2016) Psychedelics. Pharmacological Reviews 68(2):
264–355.
Pahnke W (1963) Drugs and mysticism: An analysis of the relationship
between psychedelic drugs and the mystical consciousness. PhD Dis-
sertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Passie T (2005) A history of the use of psilocybin in psychotherapy.
In: Metzner R (ed.) Sacred Mushroom of Visions: Teonanácatl:
A Sourcebook on the Psilocybin Mushroom. Rochester, VT: Park
Street Press, pp.113–138.
Passie T, Seifert J, Schneider U, et al. (2002) The pharmacology of psilo-
cybin. Addiction Biology 7(4): 357–364.
Pokorny T, Preller KH, Kometer M, et al. (2017) Effect of psilocybin on
empathy and moral decision-making. International Journal of Neu-
ropsychopharmacology 20(9): 747–757.
Preller KH, Pokorny T, Hock A, et al. (2016) Effects of serotonin 2A/1A
receptor stimulation on social exclusion processing. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
113(18): 5119–5124.
Ross S, Bossis A, Guss J, et al. (2016) Rapid and sustained symptom
reduction following psilocybin treatment for anxiety and depression
in patients with life-threatening cancer: A randomized controlled
trial. Journal of Psychopharmacology 30(12): 1165–1180.
Rucker JJ, Jelen LA, Flynn S, et al. (2016) Psychedelics in the treatment
of unipolar mood disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Psycho-
pharmacology 30(12): 1220–1229.
Rucker JJ, Schnall J, D’Hotman D, et al. (2020) Medicinal use of psilo-
cybin: Reducing restrictions on research and treatment. Available at:
https://www.cdprg.co.uk/blog/2020/7/27/medicinal-use-of-psilocy-
bin-reducing-restrictions-on-research-and-treatment
Sahakian BJ and Owen AM (1992) Computerized assessment in neuro-
psychiatry using CANTAB: Discussion paper. Journal of the Royal
Society of Medicine 85(7): 399–402.
Schifano F, Chiappini S, Miuli A, et al. (2021) New psychoactive sub-
stances (NPS) and serotonin syndrome onset: A systematic review.
Experimental Neurology 339: 113638.
Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, et al. (1998) The Mini-Interna-
tional Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The development and
validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-
IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 59(Suppl. 20): 22–33.
Spreng RN, McKinnon MC, Mar RA, et al. (2009) The Toronto Empathy
Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-
analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment 91(1): 62–71.
Švob Štrac D, Pivac N and Mück-Šeler D (2016) The serotonergic system
and cognitive function. Translational Neuroscience 7(1): 35–49.
Tai SJ, Nielson EM, Lennard-Jones M, et al. (2021) Development and
evaluation of a therapist training program for psilocybin therapy for
treatment-resistant depression in clinical research. Frontiers in Psy-
chiatry 12: 586682.
Vollenweider FX, Csomor PA, Knappe B, et al. (2007) The effects of
the preferential 5-HT2A agonist psilocybin on prepulse inhibition of
startle in healthy human volunteers depend on interstimulus interval.
Neuropsychopharmacology 32(9): 1876–1887.
Vollenweider FX, Vollenweider-Scherpenhuyzen MF, Bäbler A, et al.
(1998) Psilocybin induces schizophrenia-like psychosis in humans
via a serotonin-2 agonist action. NeuroReport 9(17): 3897–3902.
Watson D and Clark LA (1994) The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive
and negative affect schedule – Expanded form. Available at: https://
www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/clark/panas-x.pdf
Watson D, Clark LA and Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(6): 1063–1070.
Zanarini MC, Vujanovic AA, Parachini EA, et al. (2003) A screening
measure for BPD: The McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline
Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD). Journal of Personality Disorders
17(6): 568–573.